Freedom Line Blog

On this date in 1981, President Ronald Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 at his Rancho del Cielo property in Santa Barbara, California.  Sponsored by Congressman Jack Kemp (R – New York) and Senator William Roth (R – Delaware), the bill amended the Internal Revenue Code in order “to encourage economic growth through reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses, and incentives for savings.”

Did it ever.

By reducing tax rates and unleashing American dynamism, the U.S. witnessed two consecutive years of remarkable growth.  For the eight quarters spanning 1982 and 1983, we saw gross domestic product (GDP) growth of 5.1%, 9.3%, 8.1%, 8.5%, 8.0%, 7.1%, 3.9% and 3.3%.  Compare that to our current cyclical recovery, in which the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda of higher spending, regulation and taxation has subdued our rebound to 1.6%, 5.0%, 3.7% and 2.4% (soon to be revised downward to an estimated 1%).  Obama, Pelosi and Reid like to claim credit for our inevitable cyclical recovery from the last downturn, but the truth is that they’ve only managed to stifle it while adding trillions to our debt.

They should instead take a trip down memory lane and correct course according to the crystal clear Regan example.

Maybe this was one of the reasons Robert Gates decided to stay on as Defense Secretary when Barack Obama became president.  Faced with budget deficits and needing funding for two wars, Gates is setting his sights on reducing the waste, fraud and abuse in military bureaucracy and contracting.

Rest assured, the Gates cuts will not imperil soldiers in the field.  In an eye-opening column by Ralph Peters, the Defense Secretary’s war on waste is an admirable contribution to the government-wide belt-tightening that needs to be done.  Peters highlights five key targets:

1. A reduction in the amount of overpaid contractors currently making up 39% of the Defense Department workforce
2. Pink slips for an overabundance of senior brass and staff
3. Eliminating redundant information technology offices
4. Curbing expensive self-studies that provide little value
5. Closing the Joint Forces Command, an ineffective inter-branch agency with no mission

According to Peters, Gates can prove there’s bite to his bark if he can get JFCOM closed despite the howls from its Virginia-based congressional delegation.

Stay tuned.

Everyone except Paul Krugman at least acknowledges that paying for the recently extended unemployment benefits Congress just authorized is a serious issue; even if some consider it outweighed by other concerns.

In addition to increasing the national debt, extending unemployment benefits may also increase unemployment itself.  As Thomas Cooley explains in Forbes, studies show that unemployment benefits can reduce the urgency to find a new job.  However, Cooley mentions another phenomenon that bears further meditation:

Economists Lawrence Katz and Bruce Meyer, in a 1990 study, showed that an increase of one week of benefits increased the duration of unemployment by about 0.2 weeks. Note that some benefits have been extended up to 99 weeks. A back-of-the-envelope calculation means that going from 26 weeks of benefits to 99 would increase unemployment duration by about 14 weeks very close to the increase in duration shown in Figure 3. Recently, however, in a testimony to the Joint Economic Committee (April 29, 2010) the very same Katz said that the effects are small. The difference between the 1990 study and his current finding is that, according to his research, permanent job losses as opposed to temporary layoffs have played a bigger part in this recession. (Emphasis mine)

Unlike Krugman, I’m not one to quibble with logic and empirical data.  But the current unemployment situation is different from the usual circumstance of entities within a sector reshuffling the staff rosters.  Such events cause minor displacements – though not to individual workers and their families – and can be smoothed out when laid off workers find comparable employment in the same or similar industry.

This recession is different.  As the bolded text above shows there appears to be an economy-wide reduction in workforce afoot.  Employers are discovering unknown efficiencies with contingency workers.  In many cases, former full-time, full-benefit workers are being hired back as independent contractors for project work with no benefits.

Once employers get used to getting more production for less compensation, those former full-time, full-benefit jobs won’t be coming back.  That poses a serious quandary for limited government conservatives.  Should government provide a benefits supplement for those working multiple jobs, but still failing to pay the bills, even if it means adding to the deficit?  On the other hand, should benefits be cut to stop the fiscal bleeding with the hope that the former recipients find a way to make ends meet?

Whatever path is chosen, conservatives need to think hard about how to combine stopping the government spending with policies that enable sustainable private sector job creation.

After being called back to Washington, D.C. from Congress’ August recess by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the House of Representatives yesterday passed a $26 billion “jobs bill” that is in large part a bailout for teachers unions. 

Prior to the vote, Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA) summed up what the House was up to during a must-read floor speech:

Mr. Speaker:  Many people are asking why Congress is here today.  I think the answer’s pretty simple: we’re not bankrupting the country fast enough and so we need to come back and spend more.

In the merciful week that Congress was not in session, my constituents had one message: STOP THE SPENDING.  Obviously, Congress isn’t listening.

Over the past two years, this administration and this Congress have increased spending by nearly 18 percent and run up more debt in two years than the irresponsible Bush administration did in all of its eight years combined.  Meanwhile, unemployment has increased from 7.6 to 9.5 percent.  Yet the problem in the view of House Democrats is that we just haven’t spent enough.   So we gather here today to shovel another $26 billion at the problem. …

Mr. Speaker, with the nation now some 13.2 trillion in debt – 93 percent of the entire economy – it is time to invoke the first law of holes: when you’re in one – stop digging.  And if Congress doesn’t invoke that law now, I can all but guarantee you the American people will invoke it in November.

Read and watch Rep. McClintock’s entire floor speech here.

Already navigating a turbulent economic sea, Americans are bracing for the single largest tax increase in history this January 1.

Democrats fighting for their political lives believe they have a winner soaking “the rich,” but we’ve noted the destructive effect that raising taxes on the top bracket will have on the struggling economy.  Not only will they hit small businesses (which create most new jobs in America) particularly hard, but individuals in that bracket carry a disproportionate burden of consumer spending, which makes up 70% of our overall economy.   In this video clip from CNBC, even often left-leaning Don Peebles considers tax increases for the highest income bracket a destructive idea:

If we spend more money paying taxes, then we will have less money to invest, less money to employ workers…  We can’t take a bad situation and make it worse by taxing people more at a difficult time.”

Liberals cannot win this debate on the substance, so they instead hope to win on the rhetoric by framing the issue as “the Bush tax cuts.”  But Bush will have been gone from the White House for two full years by the time the tax increases hit.  We’re not debating new tax cuts, and Bush is long gone.  Rather, what we’re talking about are looming tax increases.  Namely, Obama’s tax increases.

Is there any periphery bounding the absurdity of the desperate political left?

The Obama Administration’s 2009 “stimulus” continues to prove itself a failure.  It promised that unemployment would peak in October 2009 at 8%, and would be down to 7.3% by now.  Instead, we remain mired near 10%.  Further, second quarter gross domestic product (GDP) was revised downward just last week to 2.4%, a slowdown from 3.7% in the first quarter and 5.0% from the fourth quarter of 2009.  Meanwhile, we’re $1 trillion deeper in debt, and the administration admitted last month that its second year deficit will reach an astounding $1.5 trillion, exceeding even its first deficit of $1.4 trillion.

Yet according to former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, “the administration’s original sin was not spending enough.”  Commenting in today’s Wall Street Journal, Reich bizarrely adds that the Democrats’ 2009 filibuster-proof Senate supermajority somehow constituted “a fragile 60 votes” constraining Obama’s ambitions, and says that the problem with ObamaCare was that it was “not nearly large or bold enough.”  Not large enough?  Take a look at this ObamaCare flow chart, which looks more intricate than a nuclear reactor.

So how much would have been enough to satisfy Reich, anyway?  Two trillion?  Three trillion?  Ten?  It all recalls the popular bumper sticker – “Don’t Tell Obama What Comes After ‘Trillion.'”

Seems like someone at the Associated Press read our commentary “Raising Taxes on ‘The Rich’ Will Harm the Economy” from last week’s Liberty Update.  Either way, we couldn’t help but note an AP headline “Economy Weakens as Wealthy Spend Less” released today.

The AP story begins, “Wealthy Americans aren’t spending so freely anymore.  And the rest of us are feeling the sqeeze.”  The story goes on to lament that the economy appears to be slowing as “the rich” spend less:

Think of the wealthy as the main engine of the economy:  When they buy more, the economy hums.  When they cut back, it sputters.  The rest of us mainly go along for the ride.”

Noting that the Obama Administration seeks to increase tax rates on that critical income segment, the AP report states ominously that, “the wealthy may be keeping some money on the sidelines due to uncertainty over whether or not they will soon face higher taxes.”

The good news is that there’s still time for the Obama Administration to wake up and smell the same coffee the AP is smelling.

Earlier this month, we noted the sad irony that leaders from welfare states like Germany now lecture President Obama about fiscal discipline.  At the recent G-20 summit in Toronto, Obama attempted to strongarm other industrialized nations into more of the deficit-inflating “stimulus” spending that has failed here, but to no avail. Germany has actually announced budget cuts, whereas Obama admitted that this year’s $1.5 trillion deficit will exceed even last year’s $1.4 trillion pit.

Yesterday, German labor market data provided additional evidence that they were right, and Obama was wrong.  For the thirteenth consecutive month, German unemployment fell, and Germany has now recovered its jobs lost during the recession.  Meanwhile, U.S. unemployment remains near its recessionary high at 9.5%, compared to Germany’s 7.6%.  Obama continues to employ his mindless “jobs saved or created” talking point, but Germany suggests that fiscal discipline and spending restraint are the better course.

Perhaps Obama can go on the German version of “The View” and explain to them why his agenda works better despite the stark evidence.

Remember when Barack Obama preposterously claimed that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit, rather than exacerbate it?  Last week, in admitting that this year’s total budget deficit will exceed last year’s, the Obama Administration included a noteworthy admission.  Namely, that ObamaCare is already adding to his unsustainable deficits.  As reported by The Wall Street Journal:

The White House said the health-care law, heralded as a powerful deficit-tamer in the long term, is expected to add $51 billion of debt between now and fiscal 2012. Those increases more than offset modest savings through 2020.”

Reasonable people knew it was just a matter of time until even Obama admitted that ObamaCare compounds the nation’s deficit.  But who knew that would only take four months?

The Obama Administration now acknowledges that this year’s budget deficit will exceed last year’s.  Their 2010 $1.5 trillion deficit constitutes 10% of gross domestic product (GDP), up from 9.9% last year.   The administration also raised its 2011 deficit forecast to $1.4 trillion, up from its previous $1.267 trillion projection.

Barack Obama repeatedly – and falsely – seeks to escape blame by scapegoating his predecessor for last year’s $1.4 trillion deficit.  He promised as a candidate to address the deficit, but instead more than tripled it in his first year with such things as his failed $1 trillion “stimulus.”  So what will be his alibi for this year’s deficit?  And for 2011’s?

Is there no expiration date on “Blame Bush?”

Another falsehood that Obama advances is that he and Congressional Democrats were simply handed this deficit on January 20, 2009.  The truth, however, is that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Democrats recaptured Congress (which controls spending under the Constitution) in November 2006, when the deficit was merely $248 billion.  In just four years, they’ve managed to multiply that number by six.

Once CFIF reported on the outrageous compensation packages of top city officials in Bell, CA, the city council announced the following resignations just after midnight today: Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo ($787,637 annual salary); Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia ($376,288); and Police Chief Randy Adams ($457,000).

Although none of the three will get severance packages when they leave, all will get substantial taxpayer-funded pensions not to work.

Rizzo would be entitled to a state pension of more than $650,000 a year for life, according to calculations made by the Times. That would make Rizzo, 56, the highest-paid retiree in the state pension system.

Adams could get more than $411,000 a year.

Spaccia, 51, could be eligible for as much as $250,000 a year when she reaches 55, though the figure is less precise than for the other two officials, the Times said.

The reason these pensions are so high is simple.  In California, many state workers get pension awards based on their highest income earning year.  All the years of lower pay – decades’ worth! – are ignored.  Since the pension amount is a percentage of the worker’s best paid year, abuse is rampant.

Anyone familiar with the system knows a police officer, firefighter, state nurse or other public employee who arranges to get tons of overtime during their last 1 to 3 years of service.  Since overtime boosts a person’s highest annual income amount, it inflates the resulting pension percentage.  This allows thousands of California public employees to retire in their 50s making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year – for life – not to work.

In fact, that’s exactly the kind of retirement Bell Police Chief Randy Adams was enjoying when Bell officials approached him for the job.  Adams had retired as the police chief of Glendale, CA, and said he would only work for Bell if the city paid both his $165,000 annual salary and the amount he was making in retirement.  If we subtract $165,000 from his annual compensation of $457,000, we can see that Adams was making $262,000 a year in retirement.

This is insane.  The public employee unions who negotiate these kinds of ridiculous contracts – and the politicians who sign off on them – have corrupted both the budget process and the integrity of their offices.  A reckoning is coming at all levels of government for precisely this kind of behavior.  The “Bell Three” are just the first of many to be rung out of office.

H/T: FoxNews.com

Senate Majority Leader (for the time being, at least)  Harry Reid (D – Nevada) mistakenly believes that he’s got a winning card with his scheduled vote today on yet another unemployment benefit extension.  Reid, along with co-conspirators Nancy Pelosi and President Obama, predictably mischaracterize Republican opposition to the vote that will immediately follow the introduction of replacement West Virginia Senator Carte Goodwin.

But here are some facts.  First, Senate Republicans only request that unemployment benefit extensions be offset with cuts in other forms of runaway federal spending.  Second, Harry Reid’s proposed extension will add $30 billion to this year’s projected $1.4 trillion deficit.  Third, unemployment benefits already stretch for 99 weeks – almost two full years.  Fourth, there have already been seven extensions in unemployment benefits during the period in which Obama’s $1 trillion “stimulus” spending has instead managed to stifle what should be a robust cyclical rebound by this point.  Fifth, even Obama’s own economic advisers have proclaimed that jobless benefits actually perpetuate and exacerbate unemployment itself.

Here’s the better policy prescription:  prevent upcoming tax increases, slow the federal government’s breakneck spending expansion and reduce the threat of anti-growth regulatory uncertainty.  When we implemented those prescriptions during the Reagan Administration, we witnessed astounding two-year gross domestic product growth of approximately 7% over eight consecutive quarters in 1983-1984.  How much longer will it take Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama to finally learn that simple lesson?

There is a strange element of humor when an international bureaucracy attempts to instruct the most prosperous and powerful nation in human history how to boost its economy.  The United States, after all, reached its status by maximizing economic freedom, not by following dynamism-sapping international norms.

Ignoring this reality, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) issued a statement yesterday instructing the U.S. to – you guessed it – raise taxes.  The IMF statement rightfully expressed concern over the nation’s debt that Obama is growing like a gigantic Chia Pet.  Unsurprisingly, however, the IMF failed to recognize this as an overspending problem, not an undertaxation problem.  More specifically, the IMF suggested “cuts in deductions, particularly for mortgage interest; higher taxes on energy; a national consumption tax; or a financial activities tax.”

Note how closely the IMF’s growth-killing prescription matches the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda, although at least the IMF didn’t take their “all of the above” position.  Regardless, the IMF (just like liberals in this country) apparently remains oblivious to the fact that incoming federal revenues actually reached their all-time high following the 2003 tax cuts, since lower taxes trigger economic growth, which in turn paradoxically increases revenues.  This is obviously a lesson that the “international community” still needs to learn along with Obama, Reid and Pelosi, but this episode provides yet another illustration why America is better off when it decides to be less like, rather than more like, the rest of the world.

Take a look at Table 2.1, “Receipts by Source: 1934-2015” here on the White House Office of Management and Budget website.  For the year 2009, the federal government took in $915 billion in income tax receipts.  Then take a look at this Congressional Budget Office report that the Obama “stimulus,” which was originally estimated to cost $787 billion, in fact cost $862 billion.

And to what effect?  The Obama White House promised that his “stimulus” would keep unemployment below 8%, but we’ve instead suffered months of approximately 10% unemployment.  Gross domestic product reports are tepid and often revised downward, and the Labor Department reported this week that unemployment claims increased just as Obama and Biden embarked on their “Recovery Summer” tour.

Obama’s “stimulus” has only succeeded in adding almost $1 trillion to our nation’s unsustainable debt, while failing in its stated goals.  For the same cost, we could have completely eliminated the income tax for an entire year.  That’s right – no income tax at all for 2009.  Imagine the real-world stimulative effect that would have had.  Unfortunately, Obama and liberals prefer more government spending and control of taxpayer dollars to the true stimulative effect that the income tax elimination would have instead provided.  They know that once Americans suddenly saw those dollars in their pockets, it would be nearly impossible to corral them back into Washington’s usual tax-and-borrow-and-spend ranch.

One of the pillars of Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign was that America had become too didactic toward the rest of the world, particularly toward the more anti-American elements of Europe.  A kinder, gentler Obama would be the ointment to soothe all international discord, they promised.

But the Obama Administration has proven even more didactic than the Bush Administration.  The primary difference is that Obama bows to antagonists like Russia and the Palestinians, while disrespecting friends like Israel.

Now, Obama is even reneging on his “reset” stance toward Europe and self-righteously instructing them on how to pilot their economies.  Consider this opening paragraph from today’s Wall Street Journal front-page article entitled “U.S. Chides Europe’s Crisis Response:”

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner landed in Europe and reasserted a traditional American role of dispenser of financial advice to the world, telling European governments to get their fiscal houses in order.”

That’s pretty amusing stuff from an administration that quadrupled America’s deficit in its very first year.  What’s worse, his administration is insisting on more of the very policies that caused Europe’s economic and budgetary maladies.  Greece’s welfare spending required a $1 trillion bailout, and Portugal, Spain and England may not be far behind. Despite this self-evident reality, the Obama Administration instructs them to pursue more of the same.  According to the report, Geithner admonished European leaders “to keep pumping stimulus into their economies.”

This prompts the question of whether there exists any remaining tether whatsoever between the Obama Administration and reality.  The euro has plummeted following Greece’s bailout, and even the American Dow Jones Industrial Average fell below 10,000 yesterday on fears that the contagion will spread.

A word of advice to Europe:  reconsider your love affair with Obama before he steers you toward even greater catastrophe.

This was Barack Obama’s official campaign website on September 9, 2008:

Today, we learned that Washington has run up a record budget deficit of $407 billion this year…  Obama will bring real change by cutting taxes for middle-class families and small businesses, paying for all his proposals to reduce the deficit, and will put America on a path towards fiscal responsibility and a stronger economy.”

Pretty bold stuff.  Reasonable minds knew then that an Obama victory would only exacerbate the nation’s deficit, even if the fawning mainstream media was refusing to press him on tough questions.  But even skeptics didn’t foresee just how bad and how rapidly he would do so.  Today, we received sobering news that the national debt surpassed the $13 trillion mark overnight.  That’s now $42,000 per American citizen, and $118,000 per American taxpayer.

And that $407 billion deficit that Obama cavalierly promised to reduce in September 2008?  He’s now raised it from $400 billion to $1.4 trillion.

That’s the type of change for which only America’s enemies could have hoped.

Two weeks ago, in a commentary entitled Obama’s Big Fat Greek Bailout, we noted the alarming parallels between Greece’s meltdown and America’s trajectory.  Following years of unsustainable welfare-state spending, Greece’s deficit stands at 13% of gross domestic product (GDP), and its cumulative debt stands at 110% of GDP.  Unfortunately, America isn’t far off, with a deficit approaching 11% of GDP and cumulative debt under Obama heading toward 90% of GDP.

Well, other observers are beginning to draw the same parallel we did.  Robert Samuelson notes his commentary The Welfare State’s Death Spiral that “virtually every advanced nation, including the United States, faces the same prospect.”  Pat Buchanan echoes our observation in his commentary The End of La Dolce Vita:

For the nations of Europe have made commitments beyond their capacity to keep, given their growing debts and aging populations.  And America is not all that far behind.  While the federal deficit is not 14% of GDP, it was 10% in 2009 and may reach 11% in 2010.  Trillion-dollar deficits are projected through the decade, bringing the public debt – held by citizens, companies, foreign governments and sovereign wealth funds – close to 100% of GDP.  And the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and federal pensions rival those of Western Europe.  States like California and New York, larger than Greece, look a lot like Greece.”

And today, we wake up to the news that Fannie Mae seeks yet another $8.4 billion federal lifeline.  Fannie was originally rescued by the federal government in September 2008, but at least that bailout was capped at $400 billion.  Last year, however, the Obama Administration agreed to remove even that limit, pledging unlimited loss coverage. Fannie’s total now stands at $83.6 billion, with Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s cumulative bailout costing American taxpayers $145 billion.

But just like Greece, whose original bailout estimate of $45 billion has now risen to $1 trillion, there is no end in sight for Fannie, Freddie or the United States.  Who knows how many more bailouts will be sought by Fannie and Freddie, not to mention other dysfunctional states like California and industries dominated by unions whose bosses are on Obama’s speed dial?

Can you hear the Greek wedding music growing louder?

Ever wonder how losing presidential campaigns pay off their bills, and keep staff afloat?  Well, Kenneth P. Vogel and Laura Rozen at Politico provide a detailed summary of how the myriad of organizations connected to Hillary Clinton’s political career are paying down her debts.

It can take years for big campaign committees — particularly presidential ones — to wind down operations, settle outstanding bills and deal with sometimes costly legal issues, all of which requires committees to keep cash in the bank. Clinton’s campaign finished the presidential race in bad shape, carrying an embarrassing $7.6 million in debt that could have hampered any future political maneuverings.

But a report filed this month with the FEC shows that at the end of March, Clinton’s presidential campaign had paid back all but $771,000 of that debt (which is still owed to her presidential campaign pollster Mark Penn), and had an impressive $624,000 in the bank, thanks mostly to hefty rental fees paid by No Limits and other groups to rent Clinton’s e-mail list since she became the nation’s top diplomat last year.

No doubt Clinton’s name recognition and multi-decade career in the national spotlight give her loyalists access to financial resources that few other politicians could tap.  Too bad the donors eliminating Clinton’s debt aren’t matching those contributions with extra donations to the Treasury Department to help soften the impact of her boss’s spending spree.

Remember the iconic 1978 movie Animal House?  In it, Kevin Bacon plays a tormented fraternity pledge stripped to his tightie-whitie underwear and forced to respond to each swat of the paddle by screaming, “Thank you, sir!  May I have another?”

In Obama’s new America, life apparently imitates Animal House.  Speaking at a partisan fundraiser, Obama once again descended into his petty trash-talking persona, saying that instead of protesting oversized government and tax burdens on April 15, Tea Party protesters should have been saying “thank you” to him.  That’s not a misprint – we should be thanking Obama for our current federal tax system. Here is the video:

obama-mocks-tea-partiers-you-would-think-theyd-be-saying-thank-you

No, Mr. President.  American taxpayers have already been stripped to their proverbial underwear, just like Kevin Bacon’s pledge.  We’re not going to respond with “thank you, sir, may I have another?”  No, we’re going to swat back come November.

Recall the flimsy, grand promises that candidate Barack Obama used to get himself elected in 2008:

We’ve been living beyond our means, and we’re going to have to make some adjustments.  Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.”

Obama made that promise during the third presidential debate in October 2008, well after the onset of the financial crisis that he now uses as an all-purpose alibi.  Accordingly, Obama’s apologists cannot claim that current realities were unforeseen when he made that statement.  Indeed, Obama himself pronounced during that same debate, “I think everybody understands at this point that we are experiencing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.”  One wonders whether Obama thought for even a moment about what would happen if he ultimately won and was forced to make good on his “hope and change” promises.

Regardless, the collision between Obama’s frivolous promises and reality continued this week.  The Treasury Department has announced that March 2010 marked a record 18th consecutive month in which the federal government posted a budget deficit.  This despite the fact that federal “bailout” spending has declined, meaning not even that can be scapegoated by the Obama Administration.  March’s $65 billion deficit also exceeded the Congressional Budget Office’s projected $62 billion deficit, and the first half 2010 fiscal year deficit now stands at $717 billion, only slightly below last year’s $781 billion first half deficit.

We’re witnessing “change,” but certainly not of the “hopeful” variety.